Bp Auxentios GOC-K: 1-19-2015 OS - Debate

[Lydia]

The single-handed consecration of Bishop Spyridon took place on Sept. 6/19, 1948, and then the other three bishops were consecrated by both Met. Matthew and Bishop Spyridon in the next three weeks (one per week). I too do not have the date, but Hieromonk Auxentios left sometime in late 1948 or early 1949 after these consecrations had taken place, and the new GOC Synod had formed.

Hieromonk Auxentios had asked St. Matthew, in fact, he had signed a petition begging St. Matthew to consecrate a bishop for the GOC, hoping that he would be elected. When he was not chosen, he left the GOC and accused it of uncanonically consecrating a bishop single-handedly. If Auxentios had begged in a signed petition for a single-handed consecration, why oppose it after the fact?

Auxentios changed his mind because he did not get elected. Look at his record following his departure from the GOC. He shunned the GOC during the years 1971 - 1976, when in humility the GOC sought his reconciliation. Auxentios was reprimanded by Archbishop Seraphim of the ROCOR for his hardness of heart toward the GOC, but he did not repent. Then later, Auxentios was defrocked by his own synod for improprieties and uncanonical acts. Still later, he helped to form the vagante jurisdictions of HOCNA, Synod of Milan, and Met. John LoBue's jurisdiction. He had a history.

After Hieromonk Auxentios had left the GOC, then the Holy Synod of the GOC defrocked him for his schismatic act.

Can you show me a copy of the petition with Hieromonk Auxentios' signature?
Even so, perhaps he realized that the single-handed consecration was uncanonical and repented of asking for it. In 1948, the "Florinites" issued a letter denouncing the consecration:
Oct 29, 1948 - In a pastoral letter, the three Florinite bishops Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina and Bishops Christopher of Megara and Polycarp of Diavala denounce Matthew’s ‘consecrations’ as an “indescribable impiety which makes Bishop Matthew guilty before God”. Matthew is labelled a “false teacher” who consecrated new bishops as “only in order to fulfil his own personal interests”. However, they also declare that the New-Calendarists have “separated themselves from the Unique Body of Orthodoxy. We consider and believe that the official Church of Greece is schismatic and that the services celebrated by its clergy are deprived of Divine grace.” http://www.gocamerica.org/history_canon ... line.shtml

Since Hieromonk Auxentios joined the Florinites, it is logical that he agreed with their assessments. You continue to impute the worst possible motivation to Archbishop Auxentios. You cannot possibly know what was in this man's heart or mind.

According to Anastasios Hudson, the letter of Archbishop Seraphim is a forgery. Who would benefit from this forgery? Matthewites who were dead set in destroying Archbishop Auxentios. Why such animus?

In 1971, the matthewite synod entered into full eucharistic union with ROCOR. They knew that ROCOR was in communion with ARCHBISHOP Auxentios. Therefore, they entered into communion with ARCHBISHOP Auxentios. The GOC was in communion with Archbishop Auxentios. Why would they enter into communion with a hieromonk they had defrocked? Shouldn't they have secured his repentance and restoration first? Did the Matthewites ever repent of entering into communion with a defrocked schismatic?

[Jean-Serge]

The commentary of Saint Nikodemos of the Apostolical canon 1 is clear :

The Apostolical Injunctions (Bk. VIIl, ch. 271, on the other hand, command that anyone ordained by a single bishop be deposed from office along with the one who ordained him, except only in case of persecution or some other impediment by reason whereof a number of bishops cannot get together and he has to be ordained by one alone, just as was Siderius ordained bishop of Palaibisca, according to Synesius, not by three, but by one bishop, Philo, because of the scarcity of bishops in those times (c. XI X of Antioch; c. XI I of Laodicea; c. VI of the Sardican; and c. I of Constantinople.)

So, the single-handed consecration can be justified : it was persecution, nobody else seemed to be willing to assist in the consecration.

[Lydia]

The commentary of Saint Nikodemos of the Apostolical canon 1 is clear :

The Apostolical Injunctions (Bk. VIIl, ch. 271, on the other hand, command that anyone ordained by a single bishop be deposed from office along with the one who ordained him, except only in case of persecution or some other impediment by reason whereof a number of bishops cannot get together and he has to be ordained by one alone, just as was Siderius ordained bishop of Palaibisca, according to Synesius, not by three, but by one bishop, Philo, because of the scarcity of bishops in those times (c. XI X of Antioch; c. XI I of Laodicea; c. VI of the Sardican; and c. I of Constantinople.)

So, the single-handed consecration can be justified : it was persecution, nobody else seemed to be willing to assist in the consecration.

I don't think anyone condemns the single-handed consecration per-se. As you point out, it can certainly be justified according to the canons and Church history.
The question is does Bishop Matthew's situation fit the criteria. He was in communion with another bishop, Germanus, who could have joined him in consecrations, but he refused. Is this significant? Think of the disorder that would occur if one bishop decides to consecrate alone because his fellow bishops refuse to assist him. At any time, one bishop could disassociate himself from his synod and start ordaining a new synod.
(not that would ever happen, of course )
And, from what I have read, Bishop Matthew was never subject to the persecution suffered by the Florinites. Is this true? I don't know.

[Isaakos]

I answered this one Lydia.

St Augustine of Canterbury left to evangelize England. He was an emissary of Pope St. Gregory the Great. While in England, he clashed with the local British bishops who had become degenerate and allowed some divergent practices to creep into the Church. They also were not fond of his desire to make the English Church a local autonomous Church of Rome.

So when it came time to consecrate bishops, none of the British/welsh bishops would help him. So he asked Pope St Gregory for permission to proceed to a single handed consecration. Having obtained permission, he proceeded.

Now, Pope St Gregory did not add anything to St Augustines capacity to ordain. He simply granted, as representative of the local church at ROME, permission.

Similarly, the GOC dos not grant Bishop Matthew powers he did not posses simply by virtue of being a bishop, rather, the priests and laity, as the plenitude of the local church, granted him permission, for the good of the Church and in view of the unwillingness of other bishops to cooperate (and in view of Chrysosyom of Florina's desire to place his Parataxis under the State Church of GREECE) to consecrate father Gideon as Bishop Spyridon of Trimythus, Cyprus.

Meteopolitan Matthew and Bishop Spyridon then, as representatives of two local Churches, GREECE and Cyprus, consecrated three more bishops: Andreas, Demetrios and Kallistos.

This was completely warranted given the times and the intention of the Florinites: to subject the GOC to the New Calendarists.

[Lydia]

I answered this one Lydia.

St Augustine of Canterbury left to evangelize England. He was an emissary of Pope St. Gregory the Great. While in England, he clashed with the local British bishops who had become degenerate and allowed some divergent practices to creep into the Church. They also were not fond of his desire to make the English Church a local autonomous Church of Rome.

So when it came time to consecrate bishops, none of the British/welsh bishops would help him. So he asked Pope St Gregory for permission to proceed to a single handed consecration. Having obtained permission, he proceeded.

Now, Pope St Gregory did not add anything to St Augustines capacity to ordain. He simply granted, as representative of the local church at ROME, permission.

Similarly, the GOC dos not grant Bishop Matthew powers he did not posses simply by virtue of being a bishop, rather, the priests and laity, as the plenitude of the local church, granted him permission, for the good of the Church and in view of the unwillingness of other bishops to cooperate (and in view of Chrysosyom of Florina's desire to place his Parataxis under the State Church of GREECE) to consecrate father Gideon as Bishop Spyridon of Trimythus, Cyprus.

Meteopolitan Matthew and Bishop Spyridon then, as representatives of two local Churches, GREECE and Cyprus, consecrated three more bishops: Andreas, Demetrios and Kallistos.
Thank you for the clarification.
I will reveal my ignorance with this question: Was Rome ever a Patriarchate? I think that one of the titles of the current pope is Patriarch of the West, but did this apply in the Orthodox Church?
This was completely warranted given the times and the intention of the Florinites: to subject the GOC to the New Calendarists.

[Lydia]

I answered this one Lydia.

St Augustine of Canterbury left to evangelize England. He was an emissary of Pope St. Gregory the Great. While in England, he clashed with the local British bishops who had become degenerate and allowed some divergent practices to creep into the Church. They also were not fond of his desire to make the English Church a local autonomous Church of Rome.

So when it came time to consecrate bishops, none of the British/welsh bishops would help him. So he asked Pope St Gregory for permission to proceed to a single handed consecration. Having obtained permission, he proceeded.

Now, Pope St Gregory did not add anything to St Augustines capacity to ordain. He simply granted, as representative of the local church at ROME, permission.

Similarly, the GOC dos not grant Bishop Matthew powers he did not posses simply by virtue of being a bishop, rather, the priests and laity, as the plenitude of the local church, granted him permission, for the good of the Church and in view of the unwillingness of other bishops to cooperate (and in view of Chrysosyom of Florina's desire to place his Parataxis under the State Church of GREECE) to consecrate father Gideon as Bishop Spyridon of Trimythus, Cyprus.

Meteopolitan Matthew and Bishop Spyridon then, as representatives of two local Churches, GREECE and Cyprus, consecrated three more bishops: Andreas, Demetrios and Kallistos.
Thank you for the clarification.
I will reveal my ignorance with this question: Was Rome ever a Patriarchate? I think that one of the titles of the current pope is Patriarch of the West, but did this apply in the Orthodox Church?
This was completely warranted given the times and the intention of the Florinites: to subject the GOC to the New Calendarists.

Thank you for the clarification.
I will reveal my ignorance with this question: Was Rome ever a Patriarchate? I think that one of the titles of the current pope is Patriarch of the West, but did this apply in the Orthodox Church?
This was completely warranted given the times and the intention of the Florinites: to subject the GOC to the New Calendarists.[/quote]

[Lydia]

The single-handed consecration of Bishop Spyridon took place on Sept. 6/19, 1948, and then the other three bishops were consecrated by both Met. Matthew and Bishop Spyridon in the next three weeks (one per week). I too do not have the date, but Hieromonk Auxentios left sometime in late 1948 or early 1949 after these consecrations had taken place, and the new GOC Synod had formed.

Hieromonk Auxentios had asked St. Matthew, in fact, he had signed a petition begging St. Matthew to consecrate a bishop for the GOC, hoping that he would be elected. When he was not chosen, he left the GOC and accused it of uncanonically consecrating a bishop single-handedly. If Auxentios had begged in a signed petition for a single-handed consecration, why oppose it after the fact?

Auxentios changed his mind because he did not get elected. Look at his record following his departure from the GOC. He shunned the GOC during the years 1971 - 1976, when in humility the GOC sought his reconciliation. Auxentios was reprimanded by Archbishop Seraphim of the ROCOR for his hardness of heart toward the GOC, but he did not repent. Then later, Auxentios was defrocked by his own synod for improprieties and uncanonical acts. Still later, he helped to form the vagante jurisdictions of HOCNA, Synod of Milan, and Met. John LoBue's jurisdiction. He had a history.

After Hieromonk Auxentios had left the GOC, then the Holy Synod of the GOC defrocked him for his schismatic act.

http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/histFl ... kakian.htm
Here is a website of Metropolitan Kyrikos regarding the petition to Bishop Matthew. There is no reference to Hieromonk Auxentios as a signatory.